MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139143533 · doi:10.1177/1043659609340801

Rationalization of Indigenous Male Circumcision as a Sacred Religious Custom

2009· article· en· W2139143533 on OpenAlexaff
Thandisizwe Redford Mavundla, Fulufhelo Netswera, Brian Bottoman, Ferenc Tóth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transcultural Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXhosaRiteRite of passageIndigenousFocus groupMale circumcisionQualitative researchMedicineGender studiesSociologyAnthropologyPopulationPolitical scienceHealth servicesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents research findings based on the meaning of indigenous circumcision to Xhosa men in South Africa. In South Africa, male circumcision is a rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood. The country has experienced serious problems associated with the practice of this rite ranging from dehydration to death in the traditional “bush” circumcision schools. A qualitative, endogenous research design that is explorative, descriptive, and contextual was undertaken using individual interviews, focus group interviews, and community meetings discussing this ritual. A total of 25 men were interviewed. Only one question was posed throughout the research process: “How do you experience having a son who is undergoing the circumcision rite?” The study revealed cultural circumcision as a “sacred religious practice” with five themes, namely (a) readiness of Xhosa families to engage in the circumcision ritual, (b) the act of circumcision and preparation for manhood, (c) the importance of symbolic purity during the circumcision ritual, (d) celebrating acquired manhood, and (5) aspects of manhood and the rejection of clinical care. Secondary to this are health promotion recommendations made for individuals involved in this ritual.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.026
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transcultural NursingSame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207